MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU1Eugjurpp+=zXJrz3UZBOpCUcJkJS6ig1UKwAni+rKGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA=duU1Eugjurpp+=zXJrz3UZBOpCUcJkJS6ig1UKwAni+rKGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 08:15:47 -0300
Message-ID: <CAA=duU1N-4NeO4PjBCz2TR1kbtjk+O4FMvvLyfrfc9yb+AKgQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: mpls@ietf.org, sfc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e05e6a056b9bcb43"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/QPBt6GTv32agysphpeCVqxVeARw>
Subject: Re: [mpls] =?utf-8?q?Segment_Routing_vs=2E_=E2=80=9CLabel_Stacking?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_in_draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00?=
Precedence: list

--000000000000e05e6a056b9bcb43
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I just realized that I was a bit more terse in my email than I should have
been. When I said that the MPLS WG had never discussed =E2=80=9CLabel Stack=
ing=E2=80=9D,
well of course we have the label stack, but we had never discussed, prior
to Segment Routing, using the label stack as a method to do source routing
via only popping labels, with no label swapping along the path.

Cheers,
Andy


On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:

> The following URL is a diff between draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-04
> and draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05, when section 6 was updated to change Segmen=
t
> Routing to =E2=80=9CLabel Stacking=E2=80=9D. (Note that the only changes =
from
> draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05 to draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00 were the name and date
> change).
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05.txt
>
> If you examine the changes to section 6, it=E2=80=99s pretty clear (at le=
ast to
> me) that the changes are really just cosmetic in nature, such as removing=
 a
> reference to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing and changing a few terms
> here and there.
>
> That, combined with the fact that the MPLS WG had never discussed =E2=80=
=9CLabel
> Stacking=E2=80=9D in a draft (never mind an RFC) prior to the introductio=
n of
> Segment Routing leaves me to conclude that section 6 really does need to =
be
> removed in order to comply with the WG concerns about -04 and earlier
> revisions of draft-farrel.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>

--000000000000e05e6a056b9bcb43
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I just realized that I was a bit more terse in my email th=
an I should have been. When I said that the MPLS WG had never discussed =E2=
=80=9CLabel Stacking=E2=80=9D, well of course we have the label stack, but =
we had never discussed, prior to Segment Routing, using the label stack as =
a method to do source routing via only popping labels, with no label swappi=
ng along the path.<div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Andy</div><div><br>=
</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mo=
n, May 7, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Andrew G. Malis <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:agmalis@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">agmalis@gmail.com</a>&gt;</spa=
n> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">The following =
URL is a diff between=C2=A0draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-<wbr>04 and=C2=A0draft-far=
rel-mpls-sfc-05, when section 6 was updated to change Segment Routing to =
=E2=80=9CLabel Stacking=E2=80=9D. (Note that the only changes from draft-fa=
rrel-mpls-sfc-05 to=C2=A0draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00 were the name and date chan=
ge).<div><br></div><div><a href=3D"https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddr=
aft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05.txt" target=3D"_blank">https://tools.ietf.org/<wbr>r=
fcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-farrel-<wbr>mpls-sfc-05.txt</a><br></div><div><br></div=
><div>If you examine the changes to section 6, it=E2=80=99s pretty clear (a=
t least to me) that the changes are really just cosmetic in nature, such as=
 removing a reference to draft-ietf-spring-segment-<wbr>routing and changin=
g a few terms here and there.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>That, combined=
 with the fact that the MPLS WG had never discussed =E2=80=9CLabel Stacking=
=E2=80=9D in a draft (never mind an RFC) prior to the introduction of Segme=
nt Routing leaves me to conclude that section 6 really does need to be remo=
ved in order to comply with the WG concerns about -04 and earlier revisions=
 of draft-farrel.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Andy</div><div=
><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--000000000000e05e6a056b9bcb43--